My own views on wind farms are fairly simple - unlike many people I find the turbines and their towers quite elegant, when seen from a distance (as I do from my home and indeed did from my previous home too), although I am very doubtful of the wisdom of investing so much, specially because it is so heavily-subsidised with public money, in this rather unreliable method of generating electricity. One hears it is becoming more cost-effective (I heard someone say in support of it on television a few evenings ago when this funding was announced, that it is now competitive with nuclear power generation, but I don't know if this is true or not, and I suspect that the person interviewed and making that claim had a pecuniary interest in the wind-farm industry), but the harsh reality, which cannot be explained away, is that when the wind isn't blowing the turbines don't turn and no electricity is generated, so alternative methods of generating electricity must be maintained for 100% of wind-farm generation capacity. That is the truth.
Anyway today is Tuesday, so it's Nairnshire Telegraph time again; this is our local weekly newspaper, but unfortunately does not have an on-line presence. In its main editorial today it covers this story, specially as it means that a local former oil-rig manufacturing facility, now unused for some years, will miss out on what some had hoped would be a new use for the site just west of Nairn. Generally, I share the views expressed in the Nairnshire, although unfortunately what I suspect is a small sub-editing error has crept into the article, specifically in the penultimate sentence of the final paragraph, where I feel certain the that the phrase "bigger and more inefficient" should more logically have read "bigger and more efficient", or possibly "bigger and less inefficient":
A BAD BLOW
- editorial appearing in "Nairnshire Telegraph" 3rd March 205
(Unfortunately our local weekly newspaper in Nairn
does not have an on-line presence.)